QuickShare vs SeaweedFS

A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted file sync & storage options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.

Not the right match-up?
FeatureQuickShareSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseLGPL-3.0Apache-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyMediumHard
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentdockerdocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 634★ 33,952
First released20262015
ReplacesAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose QuickShare if…

  • Released under the LGPL-3.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Written in Go
  • Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
QuickShare details

Choose SeaweedFS if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
  • Mature project with 34k GitHub stars
SeaweedFS details

Frequently asked questions

Is QuickShare or SeaweedFS better?

Neither is universally better. SeaweedFS has the larger community, while QuickShare is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are QuickShare and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

Yes. QuickShare is licensed under LGPL-3.0 and SeaweedFS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run QuickShare and SeaweedFS with Docker?

QuickShare: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons